Musings about Photography as an Art

UC wrote:

Photographs are non-fiction.

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-b/doisneau-1.jpg


Art is fiction.

No, fiction is (usually) art of one type. Fictions of other sorts, such
as your claims about what is and is not art, are not art.

What is fictional about a musical composition??

41 wrote:
UC wrote:

Photographs are non-fiction.

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-b/doisneau-1.jpg


Art is fiction.

No, fiction is (usually) art of one type. Fictions of other sorts, such
as your claims about what is and is not art, are not art.

What is fictional about a musical composition??

You've got a point. But, what is non-fictional about it?

Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to
painting/photography.

I did not rule ot borderline cases.

The point being that a 'normal' unmzanipulated photograph is not a work
of art.

41 wrote:
UC wrote:
41 wrote:

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-b/doisneau-1.jpg

Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to
painting/photography.

Rather imperfectly, as for example the above link shows.

Consider also a hand-coloured photograph. Is it a photo, or a painting?
If a painting, how little may I colour it that it remains a photo? If a
photo, how much do I have to colour it before it becomes a painting?
Then consider a painting by Robert Bateman. Is it a hand-coloured
photograph? What about a picture made using camera lucida?

Then consider a photograph on ancient Tri-X developed in Rodinal, with
grain the size of golf balls. What kind of non-fiction is that?

Photography surely is a greater technology and a lesser art, as I
explained more carefully previously, so much so that it can on occasion
be a non-art (automated photography); but enough of an art that it can
on other occasions be great art, and the photographer, a great artist.

Much of the time though, it's as much art as jet-plane art.* Not zero,
but working on it.


*Jet-plane art: set up monumental canvas behind a 747 or other
impressive jet plane. Start engines. Throw cans of paint into intake
grills; produce works of art suitable for any corporate entrance lobby
or palatial living room

"UC" wrote in message
ups.com...
I found him by doing a search using the string 'photography is not art'
in Google.

The quote you want is the first line of the passage:

"In order to understand what I mean by saying that photography is not a
representational art,...."

You must understand that what he means by 'representational art' what
are called the fine arts. A 'representation' is not an image. A bull
may represent strength or courage, and that makes the bull
'representational'. A photograph of a bull is not a representation,
because what is mean by 'representation' is symbolism. A photograph
cannot stand in a symbolic relation to anything. Its relation is always
causal, not symbolic. The symbolic relation is necessary for something
to be art. The statue of Venus represents Venus symbolically, not
iconically. Photographs are non-fiction. Art is fiction.


Either you're inventing your terms now, or I'm afraid you need to study up
on symbolism. I suggest Man and His Symbols, edited by Carl Jung. Your
assertion that nobody here should bother talking to you about your claims as
to what is and is not art because they don't understand the fundaments of
the language is pure poppycock. Look at Scruton, carefully establishing his
definitions right from the get go--there is no common parlance in
philosophy, except perhaps on a basic level. Every philosopher wants to
tell you how they interpret the language, and thus meaning constantly
evolves.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...

41 wrote:
UC wrote:

Photographs are non-fiction.

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-b/doisneau-1.jpg


Art is fiction.

No, fiction is (usually) art of one type. Fictions of other sorts, such
as your claims about what is and is not art, are not art.

What is fictional about a musical composition??

You've got a point. But, what is non-fictional about it?

Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to
painting/photography.


No, following your and Scruton's logic, the fiction is the fact that the
arrangement of notes is wholly invented, it's not "just" a literal rendering
of what's happening in the world. Putting aside Scruton's claim of an ideal
photograph, real photographs utilize depth of field, exposure, time lapse,
artificial lighting, double exposure, etc., etc., to capture images in a
representational manner--the resulting image isn't what the world looks
like, it's what the world looks like through an artist's eyes. Adams saw a
half-dome much more dramatic than what was really there, so he used a
wratten 25 and various dark room techniques to create something unlike
reality--a fiction, if you will. Scruton wants to argue that because each
image must start with real objects it can't be representational, but he
disregards the finer nuances of the art of photography because it suits his
argument to do so.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

What is the aim of any art? If it's acheived, why the headache over the
means?

Matt Clara wrote:

Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to
painting/photography.


No, following your and Scruton's logic, the fiction is the fact that the
arrangement of notes is wholly invented, it's not "just" a literal rendering
of what's happening in the world. Putting aside Scruton's claim of an ideal
photograph, real photographs utilize depth of field, exposure, time lapse,
artificial lighting, double exposure, etc., etc., to capture images in a
representational manner

No, photographs are iconic, not representative.

--the resulting image isn't what the world looks
like, it's what the world looks like through an artist's eyes.

No, it's not. All those things are merely different possible views of
what is. Art creates what is not. Art is genuinely creative, and not
dependent upon something else. I can sit in front of Queen Victoria
with a brush and easel, and paint a dog. A camera CANNOT photograph a
dog when Queen Victoria is before the lens.

Adams saw a
half-dome much more dramatic than what was really there, so he used a
wratten 25 and various dark room techniques to create something unlike
reality--a fiction, if you will.

No, merely a mateer of emphasis.

Scruton wants to argue that because each
image must start with real objects it can't be representational,

Pictures are paintings. Photographs are not 'pictures', but images.
They have a direct causal and geometric relationship to something else
that exists and MUST exist. A photograph is always of something else.
Art is not art of something else. A sculpture is not a sculpture of
something else, even when it is a copy. A sculptured Venus is a
representation of Venus, not an image of Venus. Venus does not
exist.You cannot photograph Venus. Art is its own object. It has no
refrence outside itself. Photographs refer outside themselves, and must
do so.

but he
disregards the finer nuances of the art of photography because it suits his
argument to do so.

The nuances are irrelevant to his argument, and to mine. Only when the
photograph is distorted beyond recognition (when it ceases to be a
photograph) can it become a work of art. Take your photographic print
and do a watercolor on the back.

Painting, sculpture, sketching, watercolor, music, and landscape
architecture all are indendent of reality for their content.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt Clara wrote:

Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to
painting/photography.


No, following your and Scruton's logic, the fiction is the fact that the
arrangement of notes is wholly invented, it's not "just" a literal
rendering
of what's happening in the world. Putting aside Scruton's claim of an
ideal
photograph, real photographs utilize depth of field, exposure, time
lapse,
artificial lighting, double exposure, etc., etc., to capture images in a
representational manner

No, photographs are iconic, not representative.

Your use of "iconic" is unlike any I've encountered before. Icons are
pictures. The word comes from Latin "to resemble". In Scruton's terms,
that sounds more like a painting than a photo.


--the resulting image isn't what the world looks
like, it's what the world looks like through an artist's eyes.

No, it's not. All those things are merely different possible views of
what is.

That's a great way to describe any art.

Art creates what is not.

I agree, until one takes a photo, it was not. And, perhaps more
importantly, says who, and why?

Art is genuinely creative, and not
dependent upon something else. I can sit in front of Queen Victoria
with a brush and easel, and paint a dog. A camera CANNOT photograph a
dog when Queen Victoria is before the lens.

Sounds more like dogma than real thought. By accepting Scruton's reasoning,
you've hemmed your understanding into a little corner. Besides, nothing is
genuinely creative, not the way you mean it--everything we can imagine has a
basis in this reality.

Adams saw a
half-dome much more dramatic than what was really there, so he used a
wratten 25 and various dark room techniques to create something unlike
reality--a fiction, if you will.

No, merely a mateer of emphasis.

Semantics.


Scruton wants to argue that because each
image must start with real objects it can't be representational,

Pictures are paintings. Photographs are not 'pictures', but images.
They have a direct causal and geometric relationship to something else
that exists and MUST exist. A photograph is always of something else.
Art is not art of something else.

Why? Who says? Give me a logical reason to believe that.

A sculpture is not a sculpture of
something else, even when it is a copy. A sculptured Venus is a
representation of Venus, not an image of Venus. Venus does not
exist.You cannot photograph Venus. Art is its own object. It has no
refrence outside itself.

Again says who?

Photographs refer outside themselves, and must
do so.

but he
disregards the finer nuances of the art of photography because it suits
his
argument to do so.

The nuances are irrelevant to his argument, and to mine. Only when the
photograph is distorted beyond recognition (when it ceases to be a
photograph) can it become a work of art. Take your photographic print
and do a watercolor on the back.

Painting, sculpture, sketching, watercolor, music, and landscape
architecture all are indendent of reality for their content.

I beg to differ--all of them are dependent on the artist's experiences.
There is no thought without experience. Art is the expression of life
through the filter of one's experiences. A photograph can be that.

Besides, the fact that it does touch outside the artist in its creation and
continued existence would only mean it isn't art if a person chose to see it
that way, like you. Why can't that be art? Think of it this way: The ideal
photo could be taken by a machine, and I mean, a Dell computer could do it,
not some futuristic sentient machine--it's just a facimile, after all, a
direct image of some real thing. Now, speaking of the act of creation, as
opposed to automated replication, an original photograph of artistic merit
cannot be created by a machine except by luck, any more than could a machine
create an original statue equalling David, or a painting such as the Mona
Lisa. What is that missing factor, if not art? It's as good a word for it
as any, at any rate.

Finally, if scientists were to study brain waves and find that a master
painter in the act of painting creates the same kind of brain storm (same
parts of the brain experiencing heightened activity of comparable degree) a
master photographer composing a photograph does, would you continue to argue
this line of reaonsing, that the photographer was looking at something
concrete and the painter wasn't, therefore the one thing's art and the other
isn't? If so, I suggest you're more interested in semantics than real
understanding.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara wrote:
.., to capture images in a
representational manner

No, photographs are iconic, not representative.

Your use of "iconic" is unlike any I've encountered before. Icons are
pictures.

Likenesses.

The word comes from Latin "to resemble".

Correct. Art represents, it does not resemble. Photographs resemble. If
they don't, they're not photographs. A painting of a bull can represent
courage or strength. A photograph cannot do that.

In Scruton's terms,
that sounds more like a painting than a photo.

Not so.



--the resulting image isn't what the world looks
like, it's what the world looks like through an artist's eyes.

No, it's not. All those things are merely different possible views of
what is.

That's a great way to describe any art.

No, see above.

Art creates what is not.

I agree, until one takes a photo, it was not. And, perhaps more
importantly, says who, and why?

No, it was before the photo was taken.

Art is genuinely creative, and not
dependent upon something else. I can sit in front of Queen Victoria
with a brush and easel, and paint a dog. A camera CANNOT photograph a
dog when Queen Victoria is before the lens.

Sounds more like dogma than real thought. By accepting Scruton's reasoning,
you've hemmed your understanding into a little corner. Besides, nothing is
genuinely creative, not the way you mean it--everything we can imagine has a
basis in this reality.

Not the same thing at all.


Adams saw a
half-dome much more dramatic than what was really there, so he used a
wratten 25 and various dark room techniques to create something unlike
reality--a fiction, if you will.

No, merely a mateer of emphasis.

Semantics.

What words mean matters. The difference between 'Yes' and 'No' is
semantics.

Scruton wants to argue that because each
image must start with real objects it can't be representational,

Pictures are paintings. Photographs are not 'pictures', but images.
They have a direct causal and geometric relationship to something else
that exists and MUST exist. A photograph is always of something else.
Art is not art of something else.

Why? Who says? Give me a logical reason to believe that.

Photographs are always 'of' something else. A photgraph of a tree means
that that tree exsted. A pianting of a 'tree' has no such causal link.
One can paint an imaginary tree, and even if one paints a real tree,
there is no causal relationship. The real tree is just like the
imaginary one, then.


A sculpture is not a sculpture of
something else, even when it is a copy. A sculptured Venus is a
representation of Venus, not an image of Venus. Venus does not
exist.You cannot photograph Venus. Art is its own object. It has no
reference outside itself.

Again says who?

I do. Show me otherwise. Show me a scultpture that has a causal
relationship to anything..


Photographs refer outside themselves, and must
do so.

but he
disregards the finer nuances of the art of photography because it suits
his
argument to do so.

The nuances are irrelevant to his argument, and to mine. Only when the
photograph is distorted beyond recognition (when it ceases to be a
photograph) can it become a work of art. Take your photographic print
and do a watercolor on the back.

Painting, sculpture, sketching, watercolor, music, and landscape
architecture all are indendent of reality for their content.

I beg to differ--all of them are dependent on the artist's experiences.

The paintings, etc., are not causally dependent on the existence of
anything. Period. All the objects in the universe except the painter
and his canvas could be wiped out, and the painter could still paint,
but the photographer is now out of luck.

There is no thought without experience. Art is the expression of life
through the filter of one's experiences.

HUH? What on Earth are you talking about?

A photograph can be that.

Besides, the fact that it does touch outside the artist in its creation and
continued existence would only mean it isn't art if a person chose to see it
that way, like you. Why can't that be art?

Things do not become art because of the lack of something preventing
it. Art does not just pop into being in the absence of something that
prevents it from happening. Art has to be MADE. It does not HAPPEN.
Photographs HAPPEN. There is in principle no way to tell whether a
photograph was taken accidentally, but no Mona Lisa happens by
accident. It is impossible to tell whether a given photograph was taken
when the camera fell off the couch.

Think of it this way: The ideal
photo could be taken by a machine, and I mean, a Dell computer could do it,
not some futuristic sentient machine--it's just a facimile, after all, a
direct image of some real thing. Now, speaking of the act of creation, as
opposed to automated replication, an original photograph of artistic merit
cannot be created by a machine except by luck, any more than could a machine
create an original statue equalling David, or a painting such as the Mona
Lisa. What is that missing factor, if not art? It's as good a word for it
as any, at any rate.

Finally, if scientists were to study brain waves and find that a master
painter in the act of painting creates the same kind of brain storm (same
parts of the brain experiencing heightened activity of comparable degree) a
master photographer composing a photograph does, would you continue to argue
this line of reaonsing, that the photographer was looking at something
concrete and the painter wasn't, therefore the one thing's art and the other
isn't? If so, I suggest you're more interested in semantics than real
understanding.

The call against semantics obscures the fact that we are discussing
concepts that have names. Whether something qualifies as 'art' is in
part a discussion of the history of the usage of this word and the
concept it represents.


--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

You're full of **** like a christmas goose. Everything is derivative.
Period. And a photo of a bull can have all the symbolic strength of a
painting of a bull. If you don't understand that, you don't understand
symbolism. You're really more interested in splitting metaphysical hairs
than having a true understanding of the creative process behind the creation
of what is art.